Pubdate: Wed, 20 Aug 2008
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2008 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/InSite
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)

NO REASON TO SCOLD DOCTORS

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, 
Health Minister Tony Clement took it upon himself this week to accuse 
doctors of failing to look out for the interests of drug addicts. 
Even if his words had not been delivered the same week that his 
Conservative Party distributed advertisements pledging to keep 
"junkies" off the streets and away from children and families, his 
audience would have had reason to take offence.

His opposition to Insite is already well known; Mr. Clement could 
have skipped the subject of Vancouver's supervised-injection facility 
entirely. Instead, he adopted a more strident position than ever 
before - questioning the ethics of doctors who support the site. "Is 
it ethical for health-care professionals to support the 
administration of drugs that are of unknown substance, or purity or 
potency - drugs that cannot otherwise be legally prescribed?" he 
demanded. "The supervised-injection site undercuts the ethic of 
medical practice and sets a debilitating example for all physicians 
and nurses, both present and future in Canada."

Not himself a doctor, Mr. Clement's scolding would have been 
presumptuous under any circumstances. But it was all the more 
dubious, because of the analogy he went on to draw. "Imagine for a 
moment a doctor who has a patient with a serious but treatable case 
of cancer," he said. "Would it be ethical for that doctor to give 
that woman morphine and otherwise make her comfortable until she died 
of her disease, rather than offer the patient treatment toward full recovery?"

As is always the case when he attempts to present harm reduction and 
rehabilitation as mutually exclusive options, Mr. Clement neglected 
to mention that Insite does not divert addicts from treatment. On the 
contrary, it actively encourages them to seek it. In addition to the 
reams of peer-reviewed research that Mr. Clement continues to 
dismiss, his own comparatively skeptical advisory panel acknowledged 
that such encouragement has led to increased use of rehabilitation facilities.

If Mr. Clement believes that long-term treatment is underfunded, as 
he spent much of his speech arguing, then his government should 
increase funding for it. But that does not justify attacking the 
morals of medical professionals who believe, with ample research to 
support them, that facilities such as Insite are life-saving tools in 
treating the disease of drug addiction. As his own party distributes 
literature dehumanizing that disease's sufferers, Mr. Clement is in 
no position to deliver lectures on compassion.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom